Months later, one question keeps circulating: who were the politicians involved in the alleged “parallel plan”? Teodoro revisits the affair and calls for clarity, accountability, and above all for the suspicions to be either confirmed by facts or dismissed with the same clarity with which they were raised.
Over these past months, I have often met citizens who still ask me the same question: “So in the end, which politicians were involved in this ‘parallel plan’?”
It’s a question I cannot and do not want to ignore, because if it is still circulating among people after all this time, it means that a strong, lingering climate of suspicion remains within our community.
It all began with the statement issued by the Single Court (Tribunale Unico) on 6 February, which disclosed information related to the investigation and to an alleged “parallel plan,” with references to possible political involvement.
The judiciary has both the duty and the right to carry out its work and establish the facts — this principle is never in question; let that be clear.
However, a judicial investigation is one thing; what is unleashed through public statements that then spill over into political debate and public perception is quite another. It is precisely on this point that I believe we must reflect, because once suspicion has taken root in society, it becomes a poison that is difficult to remove.
The question I am raising today, then, is not merely “what happened?” but also: who takes responsibility for what has been said, claimed and done in these months if that poison continues to contaminate the debate?
Indeed, we have witnessed public statements, calls for clarification, and even the launch of proceedings for a Commission of Inquiry. All of this is legitimate, if the goal is to shed full light on the matter. But such an instrument of investigation must never be created to confirm a suspicion or to pre-emptively identify a culprit — it must exist to reconstruct the facts in every direction, including any political dimension. If responsibilities emerge, they must be clarified, and those responsible must face the consequences. But if certain reconstructions or responsibilities implied in public debate turn out not to be confirmed, someone must have the courage to say so with equal clarity. That, too, is what it means to exercise real responsibility.
One cannot demand transparency only when it concerns others, and above all, citizens must not be left with beliefs that do not correspond to reality. Because when I am asked on the street, “who were those politicians?”, I believe our community deserves an answer — one that even I, despite my institutional role, find myself struggling to give. It is troubling and hurtful to see how the actions of a few end up fuelling a culture of generalized suspicion, one that paints the entire political class as though it were willing to do anything, or subject to hidden powers and parallel plans. I have always fought for a culture of legality; that is why I reject, and will categorically continue to reject, this indiscriminate mudslinging.
There is also a more urgent matter at stake: the fundamental priority of preserving the credibility of our financial sector. Institutions should not be preoccupied with determining who wins a partisan political clash, but rather with protecting and safeguarding San Marino’s banking sector. Within that sector, what is at stake is not merely figures or balance sheets, but the interests, protections and savings of families — and therefore of citizens.
When we speak of financial credibility, we are speaking of the trust of those who entrust their savings to our banks, of the Republic’s international reputation, of our capacity to attract healthy investment, and ultimately of the country’s economic solidity. This is why politics, and every component of the system, must treat the defence of the financial sector as an absolute priority, rather than using it as a battleground.
It would be far too easy to lay all the blame on politics, using it as a convenient scapegoat to mask the maturity of the country as a whole. I believe it is instead necessary to call for the utmost responsibility from the ownership and governing bodies of credit institutions, as well as from the Supervisory Authority. The Central Bank, bank leadership and the judiciary all hold essential roles and responsibilities — both in ensuring the soundness of institutions and in managing communication with prudence and balance, especially before certain facts have been established.
Those who hold ownership and management responsibilities must be aware that a bank is not just any company, and that its affairs have repercussions that extend well beyond ownership itself:
They affect employees.
They affect customers.
They affect savers.
They affect other operators in the system.
They affect the reputation of the entire Republic.
Protecting the country requires shared, but clearly distinct, responsibilities: politics must do politics, supervisory authorities must supervise, the judiciary must investigate, while ownership and management must take on their own managerial responsibilities. Each must rigorously respect their own role, including in the chain of communication: it is essential to establish who communicates, what they communicate, and above all, how they do so. Ensuring the system’s stability does not mean making proclamations at the expense of citizens: even though they remain outside the dynamics of certain proceedings, they are the first to suffer the greatest harm when things are communicated inadequately.
In recent years we have all spoken of the need to make San Marino secure, but let us be clear: safeguarding it cannot be a mere good intention or a slogan used only in times of difficulty. It must become a strategic vision, a preventive culture and a concrete commitment that translates into respect for institutions, transparency, and the ability to put the interest of the Republic before partisan convenience.
This responsibility concerns everyone:
It concerns the majority and the opposition.
It concerns the Government and the Council.
It concerns oversight bodies.
It concerns the economic and financial system.
It concerns the ownership and governing bodies of financial institutions.
It concerns the judiciary.
It concerns every component that plays an active role in the life of the country.
Because San Marino does not belong to any one faction — it belongs to all of us. We all have a duty to protect it: whether that means setting aside a controversy or publicly admitting that a suspicion had no basis, or having the courage to face the consequences of one’s actions should a suspicion prove well-founded instead.
I do not want political trials, I do not want scapegoats, and I do not want pre-emptive acquittals. I want clarity, I want the facts reconstructed, and I want each person to answer for their real responsibilities — not for those manufactured through the art of controversy.
I want this affair to end with citizens being able to say that the facts were established, that any responsibilities led to clear sanctions — not ambiguous or, worse, indefinitely pending ones — and that, where no wrongdoing was found, this was declared with absolute transparency.
This is how one should act: keeping at bay the temptation of pre-emptive, sensational announcements. San Marino needs fewer suspicions and more facts, fewer proclamations and more action, less confrontation and a greater sense of institutional purpose combined with vision.
That is why this reflection aligns with the strong sense of support for the entire process carried out so far toward the Association Agreement with the European Union, which will be finally concluded on 19 October. It has been the result of strategic and targeted political choices, strongly pursued and desired, which — precisely in light of the critical issues raised — will bring great credibility, authority and security to our country. For this reason, I urge and invite my colleague at the Foreign Ministry to continue, with my full support, along the path that will follow the signing, leading San Marino, starting next 1 January, toward what will, in every respect, be the Republic of the future.
Because safeguarding San Marino is not something one proclaims: it is something one practises, every day, through responsible action and, above all, through a new culture that becomes the living heritage of every citizen.
